Zero Super Bowl wins since Spygate. Let's see you Pats trolls now tell us once again how it's just a coincidence.

Then let's have you explain how your head coach can't be bothered to shake hands or do an interview following that game. You would think he'd be REALLY good at losing now.

Jim Rome said it great yesterday leading up to the game:

"Remember when Tom Brady was undefeated in the playoffs? Don't worry, I don't either."

Just to make it clear, there's nobody in the NFL, no fan or player, outside of maybe the McCourty on Tennessee who wants to see the Patriots in the post-season anymore other than you Pats fans. You aren't some loved team. Your coach is a whiny baby, your owner whines to the commissioner who listens to him, and your team is essentially a guaranteed out from the AFC Championship on up.

Good riddance.

Oh and let's see how much your classy owner Kraft forces Goodell to fine Suggs for his beautifully true and eloquent statements on Twitter.

What do expect? I hear the only reason he even got the job, was because of his cousin Art Vandelay.

01-21-2013, 12:09 PM

AFCEastFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMarsico9

Zero Super Bowl wins since Spygate. Let's see you Pats trolls now tell us once again how it's just a coincidence.

Then let's have you explain how your head coach can't be bothered to shake hands or do an interview following that game. You would think he'd be REALLY good at losing now.

Zero Super Bowl wins since Troy Brown, Willie McGinest, Ted Washington and Corey Dillon left, among others. Let's see you whiny Patriots haters tells us once again how it's just a coincidence.

As to your second "point", are you splitting hairs between a handshake and an embrace? And haven't you seen enough Belichick interviews by now to know that there is no difference in substance between an actual interview and him blowing off the interview completely?

Zero Super Bowl wins since Troy Brown, Willie McGinest, Ted Washington and Corey Dillon left, among others. Let's see you whiny Patriots haters tells us once again how it's just a coincidence.

As to your second "point", are you splitting hairs between a handshake and an embrace? And haven't you seen enough Belichick interviews by now to know that there is no difference in substance between an actual interview and him blowing off the interview completely?

So you are saying that these guys were the ones that were doing the filming?

01-21-2013, 12:14 PM

endgameeugenics

They get caught cheating AFTER winning 3 Super Bowls. Why would you still be cheating after youv'e already won 3 Super Bowls? And.... Why would you risk getting caught cheating IF your tactics didn't give you a significant advantage?

01-21-2013, 12:27 PM

JetPotato

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgameeugenics

They get caught cheating AFTER winning 3 Super Bowls. Why would you still be cheating after youv'e already won 3 Super Bowls? And.... Why would you risk getting caught cheating IF your tactics didn't give you a significant advantage?

Not only risked getting caught... DARED the league to do something about it.

Fact is they did it for years, were specifically warned via league memo to cut it out, and STILL did it, getting caught later that year. So as you said, if there's no advantage to doing it and the league warns you to stop, why continue?

01-21-2013, 12:35 PM

endgameeugenics

Every other team, Every other owner in the league should petition for the Pats to be stripped of their Super Bowls.

01-21-2013, 12:37 PM

AFCEastFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Not only risked getting caught... DARED the league to do something about it.

Fact is they did it for years, were specifically warned via league memo to cut it out, and STILL did it, getting caught later that year. So as you said, if there's no advantage to doing it and the league warns you to stop, why continue?

If the league advised Belichick to do ANYTHING by memo, whether irrelevant to game play (e.g. giving post-game interviews to the national broadcast media) or very material to game play (e.g. having his DB's stop manhandling WR's), do you think he would do it? Or do you think he would wait until the league or its officials actually started imposing penalties?

01-21-2013, 12:40 PM

endgameeugenics

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFCEastFan

If the league advised Belichick to do ANYTHING by memo, whether irrelevant to game play (e.g. giving post-game interviews to the national broadcast media) or very material to game play (e.g. having his DB's stop manhandling WR's), do you think he would do it? Or do you think he would wait until the league or its officials actually started imposing penalties?

All I was sayin was Spygate was a significant advantage. That's why they kept doing it AFTER ALREADY WINNING 3 SUPER BOWLS by cheating.

01-21-2013, 12:44 PM

JetPotato

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFCEastFan

If the league advised Belichick to do ANYTHING by memo, whether irrelevant to game play (e.g. giving post-game interviews to the national broadcast media) or very material to game play (e.g. having his DB's stop manhandling WR's), do you think he would do it? Or do you think he would wait until the league or its officials actually started imposing penalties?

Lol.

So what you're saying here is that Belichick's inherent dooshiness excuses his behavior in this cheating scandal?

The league requires coaches to do press conferences because they are spokesmen for the league. Not comparable to the taping rule. Ask yourself why the league made that rule in the first place. Think about your answer, then let us know why it was instituted.

01-21-2013, 12:48 PM

AFCEastFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Lol.

So what you're saying here is that Belichick's inherent dooshiness excuses his behavior in this cheating scandal?

The league requires coaches to do press conferences because they are spokesmen for the league. Not comparable to the taping rule. Ask yourself why the league made that rule in the first place. Think about your answer, then let us know why it was instituted.

I'm saying that his unwillingness to comply with a league memo is evidence of his inherent dooshiness not (as you apparently were suggesting) evidence of the advantage that videotaping (or whatever other behavior is frowned upon by league memos) conveys.

01-21-2013, 12:49 PM

chesapeakejet

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFCEastFan

If the league advised Belichick to do ANYTHING by memo, whether irrelevant to game play (e.g. giving post-game interviews to the national broadcast media) or very material to game play (e.g. having his DB's stop manhandling WR's), do you think he would do it? Or do you think he would wait until the league or its officials actually started imposing penalties?

Refresh my memory. Didn't the league fine Bellichick and then didn't Kraft pay him some kind of bonus? I may be wrong.

**********************
Everyone please note that a ball trapped against a helmet is the only thing that stopped the Pats* from winning a "post-cheating" Super Bowl. I think the "popular" thinking that cheating is the reason the Pats* won those Super Bowls is a bit of a stretch. At least among those of us that think rationally. :D

01-21-2013, 01:16 PM

endgameeugenics

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesapeakejet

Refresh my memory. Didn't the league fine Bellichick and then didn't Kraft pay him some kind of bonus? I may be wrong.

**********************Everyone please note that a ball trapped against a helmet is the only thing that stopped the Pats* from winning a "post-cheating" Super Bowl. I think the "popular" thinking that cheating is the reason the Pats* won those Super Bowls is a bit of a stretch. At least among those of us that think rationally. :D

What does that have to do with them cheating to win the 3 that they won? They were cheating, They gained a significant advantage cheating, Why would the thought that cheating won them 3 super bowls be a stretch? It really doesn't matter that they're 0 for after getting caught.

So everyone be honest to yourselfs

if you were competing against someone who has won the last 3 outta 4 championships of whatever it is you're competing at, and they get caught cheating after all the success, would you suspect them of cheating the whole entire duration of their success?

01-21-2013, 01:19 PM

chesapeakejet

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgameeugenics

What does that have to do with them cheating to win the 3 that they won? They were cheating, They gained a significant advantage cheating

Posters try to prove the importance of their cheating by saying that haven't won a SB since. They haven't won, but let's be rational here. They've been REAL close, so I think the cheating wasn't a significant advantage. JMHO

01-21-2013, 01:31 PM

RussianGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesapeakejet

Posters try to prove the importance of their cheating by saying that haven't won a SB since. They haven't won, but let's be rational here. They've been REAL close, so I think the cheating wasn't a significant advantage. JMHO

How you define "a significant advantage"? Most of NFL games are decided by 5-6 plays. Get advantage -and you on top. Even if it gives you 3-4 points advanatage.
Refresh my memory - by how many points cheating scumbags "won" those 3 SBs?
And this is not counting other cheating ways, which will eventually be revealed.

01-21-2013, 01:36 PM

endgameeugenics

if you were competing against someone who has won the last 3 outta 4 championships of whatever it is you're competing at, and they get caught cheating after all the success, would you suspect them of cheating the whole entire duration of their success?

The only way you continue to be greedy and still cheat after winning 3 outta 4 super bowls is, if those cheating tactics really gave you a significant advantage and contributed to your recent success.

01-21-2013, 01:46 PM

JoeJam Football

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMarsico9

Zero Super Bowl wins since Spygate. Let's see you Pats trolls now tell us once again how it's just a coincidence.

Then let's have you explain how your head coach can't be bothered to shake hands or do an interview following that game. You would think he'd be REALLY good at losing now.

Jim Rome said it great yesterday leading up to the game:

"Remember when Tom Brady was undefeated in the playoffs? Don't worry, I don't either."

Just to make it clear, there's nobody in the NFL, no fan or player, outside of maybe the McCourty on Tennessee who wants to see the Patriots in the post-season anymore other than you Pats fans. You aren't some loved team. Your coach is a whiny baby, your owner whines to the commissioner who listens to him, and your team is essentially a guaranteed out from the AFC Championship on up.

Good riddance.

Oh and let's see how much your classy owner Kraft forces Goodell to fine Suggs for his beautifully true and eloquent statements on Twitter.

Its called "The curse of the Mangino" because it was Eric Mangini that dropped a dime on Belicheat. This is the legend of the beginning of this curse. It may last as long as the curse of "The Bambino". Same cities involved. The Curse states that the Patriots will never win another Super Bowl until the Jets win one first. Actually I hope it doesn't last long because that would mean the Jets will have won one but this curse is currently in effect!

01-21-2013, 01:52 PM

RussianGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeJam Football

Its called "The curse of the Mangino" because it was Eric Mangini that dropped a dime on Belicheat. This is the legend of the beginning of this curse. It may last as long as the curse of "The Bambino". Same cities involved. The Curse states that the Patriots will never win another Super Bowl until the Jets win one first. Actually I hope it doesn't last long because that would mean the Jets will have won one but this curse is currently in effect!